Delete a saved design kit

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It transparently discloses the permanent destructive nature, the hard requirement for confirm: true, the 409 conflict behavior, and the required OAuth scope. This gives the agent a complete picture of consequences and preconditions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, confirmation requirement, and error scenario/auth scope. It is front-loaded with the verb and object, making it immediately clear what the tool does. No redundant or generic filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive delete tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all essential context: permanence, confirm flag, conflict resolution, and auth. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool safely.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing that confirm must be exactly true and why, which reinforces the schema. It does not need to add syntax details since the schema already documents both parameters well, but the extra cautionary note justifies a 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Permanently delete') and the resource ('one of your saved design kits'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools by specifying the destructive nature and requiring confirmation, which sets it apart from update/remix tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context on when to use the tool (deleting a kit) and prerequisites (kits:write scope, confirm: true). It also explains a key exclusion: kits referenced by a brand project are refused, prompting the user to retire references first. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or broader when-not-to-use cases.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.